That schedule was put together before it was decided to wait for the JSR 239 (Java bindings to OpenGL ES) to be created. Getting JSR 239 together took a lot more work than anticipated so things got pushed back.

We're hoping to have the early draft review by the end of the summer.

Cas - this is your chance to use your experience to help the Expert Group out and help design the official Java bindings to OpenGL.

Since I wrote up the really, really old minutes, I thought I would write up the old minutes as well!

d

Java.Net Board Meeting Minutes April 12th

Attendees: Dan, Shawn

1) AI's from previous meeting: Greg: Create the page for the games catalog and announce it to the community Greg was not present at the meeting. Other board members unaware of any progress made on this.

Dan: Move project proposals and board announcements to the forums and update all procedure docs to reflect this. Completed.

3) There are concerns about the developer agreement Need to explain to people that the only reason the agreement is needed is to protect against third party IP being contributed to the project without the party's consent. Dan will try to add a little clarification to the docs on this.

4) Board Goals Board needs to decide on goals for this session. Will be further defined in email/forums/etc.

5) Anything going on at E3? Sun/GTG will not have a booth at E3.

6) Question about JOGL on Mac OS X Status There were build problems with JOGL on the mac but Dan believes they were fixed. Shawn will confirm status and bug Dan if the builds are still broken.

7) Public domain Art and Content page. There were some suggestions from the community that some PD art might help when they are developing their games. The Wiki is a great place to list things like this. AI: Dan - add a place in the Wiki where links to PD art can go.

Sorry this took so long to get out - it was my understanding that someone else on the board was going to be posting these.

d

Minutes of the Java.Net Board MeetingFebruary 25, 2004

1) Will meet a minimum of once per quarter First Monday of the Calendar Quarter &#8211; 10 AM Pacific Time April 5th, July 12th, Oct 4th

2) Look into an informal get together at GDC and JavaOne. Query forums for potential attendance.

3) Public calls for community demos? Chris M. is always asking the community for the latest and greatest Java games. Would be better to have an on going page that Chris (and others) could just go to. Community members can submit there games to the board. The board will ensure the games run and post them to the site. Possibly have a rating system for the community members to use as well. *AI: Greg will create the page for this and announce it to the community

4) Community wants to be more involved in CVS project administration. - All CVS activity is controlled by CollabNet and they won't give us any control.

5) Relationship between Sun's Game Technologies Group and the Games Board The GTG is a participating member. The board members that were voted in by the community have the onus of driving the goals of the board and the java.net games community as well.

6) Community wants greater input on games-core projects. What is the proper submission process for change? The procedure is outlined in the Governance Guidelines found at: http://games.dev.java.net/govern.html If a project owner is felt not to be following these guidelines the community members should inform the board.

7) The EMail alias is dead. Many new project proposals are failing simply because nobody is aware of them. Most people don't subscribe to the announce aliases as the forums are the preferred method of communication for most members. *AI DAN: Move project proposals and board announcements to the forums and update all procedure docs to reflect this.

8) The board needs to start thinking about the long term goals that the board and games community wish to accomplish.

OK, so I take it that the gl/GL prefix issue is a hot topic! There have been valid points made on both sides of the argument. I don't think we need to keep thrashing the issue around in the forums anymore.

This will be one of the first issues to be decided by the JSR 231 Expert Group. What I intend to do is summarize all of the points made here and use them to start the EG discussion. I can already tell that whatever decision is made someone won't be happy. Hopefully whatever is decided will not cause a rift in the community.

Moving on from G's and L's, if this API feedback topic were closed today, does it capture all of the current issues with how JOGL handles the OpenGL API? I don't want to overlook anything because everyone got sidetracked on the naming convention.

By the way thanks for the input! The more I have the better I can guide the EG to the problems the community feels are important.

As most of you are probably aware, jogl will be used as the starting point for the Reference Implementation for JSR 231 Java bindings to OpenGL (see http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=231). The people who read this forum have some of the most experience with this API. I would like to solicit your feedback regarding the jogl API.

I don't want "jogl crashes when I do x" type of issues. While legitimate problems, they are not tied to the creation of an API specification. Assuming everything worked 100% as advertised, what parts of the API would you want to see changed and why. The better the explanation, the better the JSR 231 Expert Group will be able to determine the importance of the issue.

Please note there are no guarantees that any issue posted will be addressed, the Expert Group will decide how best to deal with all issues.

As a starting point, here are the issue I thought were relevant from the open issues in the jogl.dev.java.net project: 52 Current GLU semantics need to be properly encapsulated 63 NoAutoRedraw paint behavior 27 convenient usage of jogl from a jdk perspective

The examples are **** (self-censored :O), they even go against some of what the API docs suggest, without explaining why (although eventually I tracked down explanations to the diversions, but not from official channels, just consensus opinion amongst users).

I think I'd actually recommend *avoiding* those examples - they have done some people (read sun's forums, and other forums via google) more harm than good.

Every way you look at it, the NIO doc situation is unacceptable.

Hmmm, that's what I get for not actually looking at the docs before recommending them....

The final word on this is that collabnet is willing to delete empty directories - although I have heard this will create problems for the history files. The other way, as suggested is to create a new project and wipe out the old but this will again lose the history files.

It would help tremendously to have a sort of bird's-eye view of the operation and direction of the project. As specific examples:

(1) are the people working on JOGL doing so because of a firm long-term commitment from SUN and/or SGI and/or anyone else to support it, or are they doing it for love of the project? (I'm all for love of the project, but it's a hard thing on which to base corporate and educational decisions looking 2-5 years out).

There is at least one Sun engineer from the Games Technologies Group as project owner on all games-core projects. We are working on establishing a system of quarterly updates for all core projects. We have been writing up policies and procedures for this to ensure that it happens in a consistant manner. We hope to start this process sometime in the next 3 months.

Quote

(2) While I'm all for J2SE1.5, it's arguably not necessary to have Tiger in order to have an idea of where the future of Java/OpenGL lies. On the other hand, it clearly is necessary to have an idea of the relationship of JOGL to OpenGL 1.5/2.0... in particular with relation to significant new developments like shaders.

JSR 231 (Java bindings to OpenGL) will be an optional package and not part of Tiger. It is not bound by the schedule for Tiger. The JSR is a little behind as we want to coordinate it with another as yet to be named JSR that we hope to get filed real soon now.

Quote

Is there some information posted somewhere, that I've just not found, that describes the underlying support (or lack thereof) of the project, and that gives a long-term view of the project concept in the minds of the project owners? And specifically, is there any information about current or planned future support for the shader APIs?

We also hope to come up with a release roadmap for the games-core api's. However we also want the community to help out with roadmaps and long term views, after all these API's are out there for you!

In summary, Sun is very committed to JOGL and all the games API's. That's why we have a Games Technologies Group. JOGL, in particular, will be going through the Java Community Process to become an official extension to the Java language.

What is specific to the JSR that requires a complete and seperate API from JOGL?

Maybe nothing - but the JCP process is there to ensure nothing is overlooked.

If you look at other threads in this group you will see that some people are interested in some changes to the jogl api. Before making JOGL an official Java API we want to make sure all issues have at least been looked at and understood.

A pre-question to this would be: Is this(jogl) the Java/openGL stuff as announced by SGI and Sun at SIGGRAPH or is that still on the horizon? I'm unclear as there's no stuff on either site apart from the press release.

The announcement refers to the work that will be going on with JSR 231 (Java Bindings to OpenGL). This JSR is currently being reviewed and voted upon by the EC members. If the EC approves the JSR (and I don't see why they wouldn't) then work will begin on developing the API. We will be using the JOGL api as a starting point.

Thanks for all your patience with this. We realize this has been asked for since day 1.

Nightly builds are now available for the games-core projects. The binaries are available at: https://games-binaries.dev.java.net/

Currently windows and linux are available for most games-core projects and we are working to get the other platforms up.

You may notice that all projects are listed as 1.1 beta. We haven't been doing offical versions yet so we are proclaiming everything so far has been 1.0. We will bump to 1.1 once we have our release definitions and precedures posted.

Please let us know what you think of the games-binaried "project" and any changes you would like to see.

Thanks for all your patience with this. We realize this has been asked for since day 1.

Nightly builds are now available for the games-core projects. The binaries are available at: https://games-binaries.dev.java.net/

Currently windows and linux are available for most games-core projects and we are working to get the other platforms up.

You may notice that all projects are listed as 1.1 beta. We haven't been doing offical versions yet so we are proclaiming everything so far has been 1.0. We will bump to 1.1 once we have our release definitions and precedures posted.

Please let us know what you think of the games-binaried "project" and any changes you would like to see.

Thanks for all your patience with this. We realize this has been asked for since day 1.

Nightly builds are now available for the games-core projects. The binaries are available at: https://games-binaries.dev.java.net/

Currently windows and linux are available for most games-core projects and we are working to get the other platforms up.

You may notice that all projects are listed as 1.1 beta. We haven't been doing offical versions yet so we are proclaiming everything so far has been 1.0. We will bump to 1.1 once we have our release definitions and precedures posted.

Please let us know what you think of the games-binaried "project" and any changes you would like to see.

Thanks for all your patience with this. We realize this has been asked for since day 1.

Nightly builds are now available for the games-core projects. The binaries are available at: https://games-binaries.dev.java.net/

Currently windows and linux are available for most games-core projects and we are working to get the other platforms up.

You may notice that all projects are listed as 1.1 beta. We haven't been doing offical versions yet so we are proclaiming everything so far has been 1.0. We will bump to 1.1 once we have our release definitions and precedures posted.

Please let us know what you think of the games-binaried "project" and any changes you would like to see.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org